Mr. (Bp.) Steve Wood: "What is Reformation Anglicanism?"

What is Reformation Anglicanism?
By Bishop Steve Woods
TREADING GRAIN
http://treadinggrain.com/2014/diocese-of-the-carolinas-restoring-reformation-anglicanism/
March 14, 2014

Perhaps the easiest way to describe Reformation Anglicanism is simply by defining the words. By "reformation," we mean that expression of the Christian faith that arose in the 16th century, commonly called the Protestant Reformation, which sought to reform the church according to the teaching of the Bible and the practice of the early church. By "Anglican," we mean those Christian reforms that took place in England during the Protestant Reformation.

There is of course more to be said and we hope to say much more in the future. For now it may be useful to set forth a few boundary markers to help identify partners and shape future dialogue.

Reformation Anglicanism is Gospel-centered

Of the many things that could be said about the English Reformation, one aspect that is consistently overlooked is that it would not have been possible were it not for the experience of men and women receiving the good news of Jesus Christ in a personal and transformative way.

Take for example the experience of Thomas Bilney, who recounted his own conversion in the following words: At the first reading (as I well remember), I chanced upon this sentence of St. Paul (O most sweet and comfortable sentence to my soul.): 'It is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be embraced, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief principle (1 Tim 1.15). This one sentence, through God's instruction and inward working (which I did not then perceive), did so exhilarate my heart, being before wounded with the guilt, of my sins, and being almost in despair, that immediately I felt a marvelous comfort and quietness, insomuch 'that my bruised bones leaped for joy' (Psalm 51.8).

Through what would eventually become one of Cranmer's famous "comfortable words," Bilney learned that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," and that meant that Christ Jesus came into the world to save men like him. This good news, that Bilney found in the Scriptures is the Gospel, something that William Tyndale said "makes a man's heart glad and makes him sing, dance, and leap for joy." The Gospel said Tyndale:

Is joyful tidings and, as some say, a good message declared by the apostles throughout all the world of Christ, the right David, who has fought with sin, with death, and the devil, and has overcome them. By this all men who were in bondage to sin, wounded with death and overcome by the devil are, without their own merit or deserving, loosed, justified, restored to life and saved. They are brought to liberty, and reconciled to the favor of God, and set at one with Him again. The scriptures teach us of Christ alone reconciling sinners to God by grace alone and not by works, for God's glory alone and received simply by faith alone. Reformation Anglicans are passionate about the Gospel not only because the Reformers were, but because we believe the Gospel still heals bruised bones, still makes the sad and sorrowful leap for joy, and still gives victory over sin, death, and the devil reconciling the child of God to himself and leading God's people in liberty.

Reformation Anglicanism is Catholic

A caricature of the Reformation Anglicans is that they ignore the patristic witness and the contributions of the undivided church in favor of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Not only could this not be further from the truth but this is also a serious misreading of the English Reformation.

The English Reformers very much saw themselves in continuity with the patristic church. This is why Cranmer begins many of his homilies with support from such early church theologians as Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and many others. Cranmer's implied point is that there is Patristic support for the theological points at the heart of the Reformation. More explicitly, John Jewel argues that "God's holy Gospel, the ancient bishops, and the primitive Church do make on our side."

The English Reformation did not believe it was charting a new course but rather recovering an old one. The English Reformers believed that the Medieval church had lost its way and therefore needed to be re-formed. Modern Reformation Anglicans see themselves, like their forbearers as reformed catholic Christians in continuity with the historic church and bearing the doctrine and substantial marks of early Christianity.

Reformation Anglicanism is Confessional

The Articles of Religion were passed by Parliament in 1563. It is clear by the preface to the Articles that these were to serve as the measuring stick for English Protestant Orthodoxy or as we might say, Anglican Orthodoxy.

The preface reads as follows: Articuli, de quibus in synode Londinensi anno Domini, iuxta ecclesiae Anglicanae computationem, M.D.LXII. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem, et firmandum in uera Religione consensum, inter Archiepiscopos Episcoposque utriusque Prouinciae, nec non etiam uniuersum Clerum convenit.

Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces and the whole clergy, in Convocation held in London in the year of our Lord 1562, according to the counsel of the Church of England for the avoiding of diversities of opinion and for the establishment of consent regarding true religion.

As can be seen from the above, the Articles of Religion were meant to establish orthodoxy within English Protestantism. Clergy in the Church of England, to demonstrate their orthodoxy subscribed to the Articles of Religion.

The significance of the above is as follows: one did not become a Cranmerian. Unlike the Lutherans, there is no such thing as a Cranmerian Church. Rather, one subscribed not to the teachings of Thomas Cranmer (or Ridley, or Parker, or Hooker, etc.) but one subscribed to the Articles of Religion. Reformation Anglicanism is informed by the various personalities of the English Reformation but it is identifiedby a confession of the faith of the Protestant Church of England. Some may rightly ask "but what of the Book of Common Prayer?" To which we respond: the doctrine is the seed, the devotional (Prayer Book) and institutional life (Ordinal) is the flower. The Book of Common Prayer is the fruit of the scripturally founded, Gospel-centered doctrine discovered in the Articles.

From here we note three things:

1) That Reformation Anglicans are "confessional" does not imply they are not catholic. Explicit in the Articles is an embrace of the early councils and creeds grounded not upon their institutional authority, but rather because "they may be proven by certain warrants of Holy Scripture" (Article VIII). We note with pleasure that the Jerusalem Declaration of the GAFCON movement "upholds the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

2) Reformation Anglicans judge authentic Anglicanism according to conformity to the historic confession of the Church of England. Again, the Jerusalem Statement: "We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God's Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today."

3) Reformation Anglicans embrace the ordinal and historic prayer books of the settled church (1559, 1662) as authentically showing forth the fruit of the doctrine contained in the Articles. Again, we stand in line with the Jerusalem Declaration which notes: "We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture."

As many of us seek to recover our great Anglican heritage we must first acknowledge that as a work of recovery, we are as men stumbling about in a room that has been neglected for quite some time. As a room that has been neglected for some time, the primary work is to help turn the lights on, uncover the furniture, and dust off the paintings. We must re-familiarize ourselves with this tradition.

Towards that end, we urge each of you interested in this movement of Reformation Anglicanism to dedicate yourself to a deep familiarity with the Articles of Religion and we strongly encourage you to read the following:
 Thomas Cranmer's "Preface" to the Bible
 The Book of Homilies
 Matthew Parker's "Preface" to the Bible
 John Jewel's Apology for the Church of England
 Alexander Nowell's Catechism

Reformation Anglicanism is not a slogan. Rather it is a Christian tradition, indeed the most historic Christian tradition within Anglicanism. As a tradition, it deserves to be studied, meditated upon, and prayed over. In the Diocese of the Carolinas, the Ridley Institute aims to provide a Reformation Anglicanism Bibliography for all its Ordinands to complete and be prepared to be examined upon by the end of their theological training. We would encourage all those interested in this movement to take the study of it seriously.

Reformation Anglicanism is not a historical fetish. Rather, we see in the English Reformation and the 39 Articles of Religion a clear, vibrant, and costly articulation of the saving power of the Gospel as proclaimed by our Lord Jesus and set forth in the Holy Scriptures. In this time of global Anglican turmoil, Reformation Anglicanism acts as an anchor rooting us within faithful, historic, Gospel-centered Christianity. It is the Gospel-centrality that exalts the glory of God, the grace of Jesus Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit that we cherish above all else. Reformation Anglicanism is simply a gracious reminder that Anglicans who cherish such things do not need to look beyond their own tradition to be resourced for mission both now and in the future.


The Rt. Rev. Steve Woods serves as the first bishop of the Diocese of the Carolinas, a diocese of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), as well as rector of St. Andrew's Anglican Church in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

VOL's "Short" (Slight? Thin?) Analysis of Move by Dio. of SC Re: Global Oversight

With all David Virtue's connections, one rather expects analysis not a press release.  As such, it's slight, slender, thin and rather small.


http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18678#.Uxu9NsKYZjo


Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina Seeks Provisional Primatial Oversight
By David W. Virtue www.virtueonline.org
March 8, 2014

The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is looking for an ecclesiastical home.

Since leaving the Episcopal Church it has not come under any Episcopal or Anglican authority and has resisted coming under the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

An upcoming resolution to be presented at their Annual Diocesan Convention March 14-15 could change all that. In response to an offer by the newly created Global South Primatial Oversight Council for pastoral oversight, the diocese seeks to have a formal ecclesiastical connection to the larger Communion and a consequent pastoral relationship.

This new entity was created in Cairo, Egypt, by the Global South Primates Steering Committee on February 14-15, 2014.

Most importantly, however, this resolution is the response to something others in the communion have created, and it provides a means for us to better make biblical Anglicans for a global age in this in between-time. We choose to see it as a providential provision which gives us further sacramental closeness with the global Anglican family which we so richly treasure.

The Diocese of South Carolina recognizes this as a "period of fluidity in the Anglican Communion" and reserves the right to revisit this decision, as a convention, should it be necessary during this temporary discernment period, however long it may last.

Several aspects of this resolution need to be made clear. First, this resolution in no way takes away from the need for, and the careful discernment of, an ultimate diocesan affiliation for the diocese. Therefore it is to be seen as a matter of both/and rather than either/or.

The resolution does not speak in any way about GAFCON or ACNA, the ministries of which the diocese appreciates, and the relationships within which they continue to seek nurture, cooperation and strength in the days ahead.

Speaking to the resolution personally, Bishop Mark Lawrence had this to say, "Therefore, as we continue in this ongoing process of discernment, this Provisional Primatial Oversight, if by God's grace established, will give us what some might term an extra-provincial diocesan status with an ecclesial body of the larger Anglican family. It should also be noted in this regard; this Provisional Primatial Oversight, while bringing a mutual responsibility in the Gospel, commits us to neither a hasty affiliation nor alleviates our need to continue the work of ongoing discernment for a more permanent provincial relationship.

END

(Video/Ridley Institute) Lecture 1, Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Ashley Null: "Thomas Cranmer and Contemporary Anglican Worship"

We lament the music which ruined it.  Time for a musical reformation. 
 

17 Nov 2012: Dio. of South Carolina Special Convention: Bishop Lawrence's Address

http://anglicanink.com/article/resistance-has-been-futile-mark-lawrence-tells-south-carolina-and-it-time-go

Resistance has been futile, Mark Lawrence tells South Carolina, and it is time to go

Address to the 17 Nov 2012 Special Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina by Bishop Mark Lawrence

Article | November 17, 2012 - 1:40pm | By Mark Lawrence

 

Photo: Kevin Kallsen

 

Bishop’s Address—Special Convention November 17, 2012

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the founder and perfecter of our faith….” Hebrews 12:1—2a

When this Diocese last met in a convention at St. Philip’s, it was September 16h, 2006. I was one of three candidates for the XIV Bishop of South Carolina. In my opening address the week before, I spoke these words to the assembled clergy and laity : “We meet this morning in this lovely city of Charleston. Inside the walls of this great old historic edifice—we can only hope the wisdom of the years might seep into our minds that we might rightly appreciate the present, and more importantly imagine an even greater future for tomorrow.” I purposely referenced the past, present and future in this opening sentence. So too we meet here today, our hands reaching back to bring the rich heritage of the past with us and with our feet firmly placed in the present—and with our hearts seeking God’s grace for an even greater future for tomoorow we are facing reality as it is, not as it was nor as we wish it were, but as it is. Before, however, turning our minds to consider the future, I need to say word about what in recent years we have come through. For since that day on September16th this Diocese and I have passed through two consent processes for Bishop, and two Disciplinary Board procedures for Abandonment of the Communion of The Episcopal Church—the last without our even knowing it and while we were seeking a peaceable way through this crisis. I have not done the research but I suppose two consent processes and two disciplinary board procedures is and may well remain unique in the annuals of TEC. You may remember that during that stormy first consent process I stated that: “I have lashed myself to the mast of Jesus Christ and will ride out this storm wherever the ship of faith will take me.” Well it brought me two years later here to the marshes and cypress swamps of the Low Country. Where many of your relatives landed centuries before—some searching for wealth and others herded like cattle in the hulls of ships. During these past years I have grown to love this land, set down roots in your history and, even more to our purpose, become one with you in a common allegiance to Jesus Christ, his Gospel, and his Church.
 
Consequently, I trust you will understand that I have strived in these past five years, contrary to what some may believe or assert, to keep us from this day; from what I have referred to in numerous deanery and parish gatherings as the Valley of Decision. There is little need to rehearse the events that have brought us to this moment other than to say—it is a convergence of Theology, Morality, and Church Polity that has led to our collision with the leadership of TEC. I hope most of our delegates and clergy who have heard me address these matters know in their hearts and minds that this is no attempt to build gated communities around our churches as some have piously suggested or to keep the hungry seeking hearts of a needy world from our doors. Rather, let the doors of our churches be open not only that seekers may come in but more importantly so we may go out to engage the unbelieving with the hope of the gospel and serve our communities, disdaining any tendency to stand daintily aloof in self-righteousness. Indeed, let us greet every visitor at our porch with Christ and while some of our members stand at open doors to welcome, still others will go out as our Lord has directed into the highways and byways of the world—across seas and across the street—with the Good News of a loving Father, a crucified-yet-living Savior and a community of wounded-healers learning, however falteringly, to walk in step with His Spirit. Let not God’s feast go unattended. This is our calling and our mission.

But I must say this again and again. This has never been about who is welcome or not welcome in our church. Its about what we shall tell them about Jesus Christ, his mercy, his grace and his truth – it is about , what we shall tell them when they come and what we shall share when we go out.

We have spent far too many hours and days and years in a dubious and fruitless resistance to the relentless path of TEC. And while some of us still struggle in grief at what has happened and where these extraordinary days have brought us, I believe it is time to turn the page. The leaders of TEC have made their positions known—our theological and creedal commitments regarding the trustworthiness of Scripture, the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ, and other precious truths, while tolerated, are just opinions among others; our understanding of human nature, the given-ness of gender as male and female, woven by God into the natural and created order, is now declared by canon law to be unacceptable; our understanding of marriage as proclaimed in the Book of Common Prayer “established by God in creation” and espoused by Anglicans around the world hangs precariously in the life of the Episcopal Church by a thin and fraying thread; and our understanding of the church’s polity, which until the legal strategy of the present Presiding Bishop’s litigation team framed their legal arguments, was a widely held and respected position in this church . Now to hold it and express it is tantamount to misconduct or worse to act upon it – is ruled as abandonment of this church. While one might wish the theological and moral concerns were on center stage, it is the Disciplinary Board for Bishops misuse of the church’s polity that has finally left us no place to stand within TEC. So be it. They have spoken. We have acted. We have withdrawn from that Church that we along with six other dioceses help to organize centuries ago.

While I have strived to keep us from this Valley of Decision, having walked so long in its gloom myself—once forced to decide—my allegiances are firm. The doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them and the solemn declaration “that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary for salvation” cannot be surrendered. Nor can we embrace the new revisions to the doctrine, discipline and worship so wrongly adopted. Whether we could or could not have stayed longer, or continued to resist in the face of these recent innovations need not detain us further. An unconstitutional process has weighed us in a faulty canonical balance and found us wanting. The PB’s legal team having entered with coy excuses and without canonical authority into this diocese some three or more years ago, now emerges from the shadows, stepping boldly into the light of day. We must of course address them and their actions; but should they look to reconciliation and not litigation, changing from their prior practice of speaking peace, peace while waging canonical and legal war, we shall meet with them in openness to seek new and creative solutions. Yet let this be known, they will not detract us from Christ’s mission. We move on. Those who are not with us, you may go in peace; your properties intact. Those who have yet to decide we give you what time you need. Persuasion is almost always the preferable policy, not coercion. By God’s grace we will bear you no ill. We have many friends among the bishops, priests and laity of TEC, and we wish you well. Furthermore, I bear no ill toward the Episcopal Church. She has been the incubator for an Anglican Christianity where God placed me many years ago. Rich is her heritage and regal her beauty. When I have quarreled with her it has been a lover’s quarrel. For many of the precious gifts she has received from prior generations she has not maintained. And she has left no place for many of us to maintain them either. So I say free from malice and with abiding charity we must turn the page. And I say this as well: to all who will continue with us: “Let us rend our hearts and not our garments.” Let us be careful not to poison the waters of our communities with our differences with TEC. Rarely have the spiritually hungry, the seeker, the unconverted or the unchurched been won for Jesus Christ through church conflicts, denominational discord, or ecclesiastical excesses. If we are to have the aroma of Christ we must live in his grace with faith, hope, and charity. The apostle has described it well the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness (long-suffering) and self control. Therefore, we cannot allow either personally or corporately any root of bitterness, resentment, un-forgiveness, anger or fear to take us like untied and forgotten buoys in an outgoing tide, burying our hearts and mission in some muddy marsh or to float adrift in some backwater slough. No, we shall turn the page with hearts wide open and love abounding for the chief of sinners – which is always us. We shall move on. 

Actually, let me state it more accurately. We have moved on. With the Standing Committee’s resolution of disassociation the fact is accomplished: legally and canonically. The resolutions before you this day are affirmations of that fact. You have only to decide if that is your will and your emotions will follow.

Following Christ the Pioneer and Perfecter of our Future

So turning the page let us take a brief look at this next chapter of the Diocese of South Carolina. We shall need, of course, the promises and exhortations of the apostolic word. I began this address with verses from the Letter to the Hebrews. After surveying in the 11th Chapter of his letter the luminaries of past generations who walked by faith and not by sight—Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Moses, David and many lesser known men and women— the writer turns the page for his readers to the present and the future. Surrounded by these witnesses or martyrs from the past these early Christians must take their place in this great narrative of salvation history. Shedding themselves of every hindrance and clinging sins and (may I suggest perhaps things they cannot take with them) they are to press on looking to Jesus the founder and perfecter of their faith. And so must we.
   
Challenges and Opportunities within the Diocese: Much speculation has arisen now that we are out of TEC as to where the Diocese of South Carolina is going? I have repeatedly said at gatherings around the diocese that this question has not been a topic of serious discussion among the changing members of the Standing Committee over the years, or for that matter among the deans, or within the Council. It needs to be state again that our time has been taken up with keeping the diocese protected, while being intact and in TEC. And knowing that should push come to shove we would need to be prepared for numerous contingencies, we put in place various protections. These are now profoundly helpful: we have a pension plan for clergy and laity; insurance possibilities for our congregations; a diocesan health insurance program. These do not allay every sacrifice or concern by any means, but they do at least fill a void that would otherwise be unnerving and almost unmanageable for many of our clergy and congregations. Yet work remains to be done in these areas, and will be done in a timely manner. Our challenges in this new landscape are many. Some rather small, and others quite enormous—but so are the advantages.

Having chosen to persuade rather than coerce we have a great meeting place—the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ! He is the one who opens the great doors or closes them. You may recall that the risen and glorified Christ spoke to the Philadelphian church in the Revelation of St. John the Divine: “Look, behold I set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut.” I believe he has opened a door for us as well. We know how to do mission. We know how to preach the gospel; to make disciples; to share our faith with others; to do effective youth ministry; hold on to the essential doctrines of Christ while being innovative in reaching emerging generations; We know how to plant and grow congregations. Do we have much to learn? You bet. Will we learn it? We will. I ask you to imagine if this might be true that perhaps the greatest congregations in this Diocese of South Carolina have yet to be grown, Maybe they haven’t even been planted. Some of us are getting long in the tooth and need to learn from and make way for younger leaders. As for me I realize how quickly it has happened: those words of the Psalmist that once caused me to think of retired priests and elder statesmen I now apply to myself: “O God, you have taught me since I was young, /and to this day I tell of your wonderful works. /And now that I am old and gray-headed, O God, do not forsake me, /till I make known your strength to this generation and your power to all who are to come.” (Psalm 71:17-18) 

When did that come to be about me and not someone else? The LORD spoke to Servant-Israel regarding her witness to the world saying: “Behold, I do a new thing—before it breaks forth I tell you of it.” It is a time for the old to dream dreams and the young to see visions. If we can combine prudence and dynamism we can get somewhere. So even while we keep the richness of a residential seminary clergy track, we need to explore new ways of preparing young men and women and even middle-age ones for ministry; especially those who know how to travel light. It is a new day and new ways of proclaiming the old truths need to be adopted.

I stated at our recent Clergy Conference that I hoped we will maintain a comprehensive Anglicanism. Should we lose an African-American congregation we shall look at planting another. If we lose an Anglo-Catholic parish we will pray for what God will have us do; there are those from whom we can learn from here in this area. As for multi-racial congregations surely that is a gift whose time has come - or perhaps is past time. Imagine what this Diocese of South Carolina can accomplish for the Kingdom of God and the Gospel if so much of our common life is no longer siphoned off in a resistance movement. 

What can our diocesan and deanery gatherings become when our focus is first and foremost on our ministry at home and Christ’s mission in the world? If we can move beyond our parish silos and into relationships that foster mutual growth and mission a new day of possibilities awaits us. I will be calling together a task force to link stronger parishes with congregations and missions in the diocese that may suffer the loss of members due to this departure from TEC. If a smaller parish has lost 10, 20 or 30 percent of its membership it may not be able to afford a full time priest. So while continuing to keep the door ajar for disaffected parishioners to return, we need to find ways to enable that congregation to continue to support their rector or vicar; and not merely in order to keep ply wood from the windows but in order to reach their community for Christ and to grow his Church. That is what it is about. Let’s get on with it. This will be one of our first priorities. We also need to re-configure some of our deaneries. Some are functioning well and others are almost defunct in offering little if any real support for clergy or for drafting cooperative work for ministry and mission. There is room for exciting developments and opportunities here.

Let me turn to the challenges and opportunities in North American Anglicanism for a minute: South Carolina has been and continues to be a microcosm of North American Anglicanism—with all that is good and vital, and all that is most troubling. In an address at the Mere Anglicanism Conference last January I noted that there were some six overlapping jurisdictions within the boundaries of our diocese all making claims one way or another to being Anglican. With the exception of this Diocese of South Carolina, the oldest of these Churches is the Reformed Episcopal Church. There are many REC congregations throughout South Carolina. They reach a good number of people with a vital faith and a strong Anglican tradition. They have a goodly heritage and a seminary just up the road in Summerville. Then three’s the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) which has until recently been the mother church of their movement at Pawleys Island. Recently the All Saints’ Pawleys Island congregation voted to associate with the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). But AMiA has still other congregations scattered across the Low Country—some with bishops and some with rectors. Then, just this year ACNA ordained a former rector of this diocese, The Right Reverend Steve Wood, of St. Andrew’s Mt. Pleasant as the first bishop of their new Diocese of the Carolinas, which includes North and South Carolina. St. Andrew’s offers dynamic ministry and many within this diocese have kept bridges of relationships with these brothers and sisters in Christ and for this I give thanks. There are other Anglican bodies as well, some of whose bishops I know and some I do not. As I have stated before this is all rather un-Anglican! All these bishops overlapping one another - but to reflect on a more positive note we ought to at least to acknowledge that South Carolina may well be the most “Anglicanized” turf in North America! Everybody’s talking about Anglicans. You know what happens when everyone’s talking about Baptists? They grow churches. Everyones’ talking about Anglicans. It’s our moment!

All this might be what lies behind the question often raised at the deanery and parish forums I’ve been addressing—“Bishop, with whom will we affiliate?” My answer has been quite simply, “For now—no one.” As any wise pastor will tell you, if you been in a troubling, painful or dysfunctional relationship for a long period of time and then the marriage or relationship ends, you would be wise not to jump right away into the first one that comes along and tie the knot. You’d be wise take your time. 

Nevertheless, I hope we can work with and for a greater unity among the Anglican Churches within our local region and also within North America. We have many friends and bonds of affection that unite us and along with this—a common mission, Christ’s Mission and unity will deeply assist it. A century ago a son of this diocese, William Porcher DuBose, wrote these helpful words: “The question, How to restore and conserve Unity must go back to a prior one,--What is the Unity in question? Let us recall and repeat in our Lord’s own words: ‘I will not leave you orphans; yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but ye shall see me; because I live, ye shall live also.’….If then, in all our differences we are thus able to concentrate and agree upon the one necessity of being in Christ and of being one in Him, we must not despair of some ultimate Way to it. If we will cultivate and prepare the disposition, the will, and the purpose—God will make the Way….let us, I say, once begin on that line, and the differences that do not eliminate themselves will be turned into the higher service of deepening, broadening, and heightening the resultant Unity.” To this end I will appoint a task force to begin contacting, praying and working with these other Anglican bodies as they are willing and as God gives us the grace we will together seek a greater Anglican Unity within South Carolina or at least within our jurisdiction.
   
I recall some other challenging words from the past. Those sardonic and haunting words of William Reed Huntington, whose genius over a century ago shaped the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: “If our whole ambition as Anglicans in America be to continue a small, but eminently respectable body of Christians, and to offer refuge to people of refinement and sensibility, who are shocked by the irreverences they are apt to encounter elsewhere; in a word, if we care to be only a countercheck and not a force in society then let us say as much in plain terms, and frankly renounce any claim to Catholicity. We have only, in such a case, to wrap the robe of our dignity about us, and walk quietly along in a seclusion no one will take much trouble to disturb. Thus may we be a Church in name and a sect in deed.” I mention these cutting words for two reasons. I believe we need to work in two directions at the same time. First we need to allow ourselves to draw near to the throbbing needs of the world around us. And while maintaining the four pillars of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, we need to creatively engage our culture not with the tired arguments of the past, answering questions no one is asking, but answering those questions in the sorrowing and aspiring heart of our society.

Some years ago actually after the General Convention 2009 I went with a group of conservative Bishops to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury. But not wanting to put all my eggs in one basket, I also made an appointment with the Bishop of London. His offices are near St. Paul’s Cathedral. And not wanting to be late for an appointment with the Bishop of London I got there a little early. Since it was raining as it often is in England, I took cover under the portico of the steps of St. Paul’s Cathedral. If you’ve been there you know it is a conjunction of many streets coming in various directions. I watched the bustling crowd. I watched the people coming and going - cars and taxis and busses the heartbeat of a city. And I thought to myself, “How did it happen that I’m spending time all my time with these ecclesiastical problems and meetings when for most of my life my heart has been to engage the culture with the Good News of Jesus Christ?” We cannot let this happen. Christ said to go out into the hurting world. When Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail he didn’t mean the church would stand in Alamo-like fashion against the world beating down at the doors of the church, he meant his disciples would go out where people were shackled behind prison doors of pain and suffering, broken relationships, addictions, hopelessness and that these gates of hell will not stand against God’s people. That’s our call. Because it’s Christ’s call.

Finally, I turn to our place in The worldwide Anglican Communion. Our vision since 2009 has been to Make Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age: Helping by God’s grace to help shape emerging Anglicanism in the 21st Century. Just this week I mentioned in my recent Open Letter to the Diocese that we have heard from Archbishops, Presiding Bishops, and diocesan bishops from Kenya to Singapore, England to Egypt, Ireland to the Indian Ocean, Canada to Australia. They, represent the overwhelmingly vast majority of members of the Anglican Communion and they consider me as a faithful Anglican Bishop in good standing and they consider this diocese as part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Ah friends, this has got to comfort us as we await further guidance from God regarding future affiliation. And we need to continue conversation with the Provinces and Dioceses with whom we have missional relationships. Just yesterday I received emails from bishops in Egypt, North Africa and Ethiopia assuring us of their prayers. I thought my gosh if those in such hard pressed environments should take an interest and intercede on our behalf is humbling. I woke this morning to see an email from Ireland, from Bishop Clarke saying we are in his prayers. We are not alone. Greater are those with us than any who may be against us.

Nevertheless, this I assure you, there shall be lengthy and thorough conversation among the clergy of this diocese—our bishops, priests, and deacons—and our lay leaders before any decision will be presented before this Convention that would ask you to associate with any Province. I remind you of an historical fact—this diocese existed after the American Revolution for four years before it helped to fully form the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States and before that organization was completed. It was a fifth year before this diocese ratified that relationship at our Diocesan Convention in 1790. So for now and the foreseeable future, having withdrawn from our association with TEC, we remain an extra-provincial Diocese within the larger Anglican Communion; buttressed by the knowledge we are recognized as a legitimate diocese by the vast majority of Anglicans around the world. Truly, we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.

What then in conclusion? Having turned the page, having gazed however briefly at the next chapter, the path begins to open up before us, “… let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the Founder and Perfecter of our faith who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” These resolutions you will soon have before you are first and foremost a way for you to affirm the action of disaffiliation which the Standing Committee has legally and canonically taken. Many of you have already decided in your heart and mind how you will vote. Others will need more time. But I invite you for just a moment to stand on the steps of St. Paul’s Cathedral at the heart of the bustling city with the needs of the world, or if you prefer stand at the corner of Meeting and Broad here in Charleston or outside the Walmart in Goose Creek or Moncks Corner, or sit in a vestry meeting after having been a Rotary luncheon in Florence and lean yourself into a throbbing and hurting world. Ask yourself how long do I want to spend my time, my energy and my soul in a resistance movement that has proven so fruitless. Is it not time to get on with a ministry of Jesus Christ to a broken world? So in keeping with your understanding of God’s Word, the historic teachings of Christ’s Church, and the leading of the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ call to make Disciples, it is time to take stock of what you think, and in harmony with your heart and conscience to act. May God guide us all.
 
“Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. Amen.” Jude 24

Attorney A.S. Haley: Drops the Dime and Big Boot on TEC Presiding Bishop

Why read fiction or watch TV when modern history, like this, suitably and--at times--disgustingly entertains?  Well, perhaps the fiction and TV offers temporary relief from the spectacle called TEC and "Christian" leadership.  I think Ms. Schori would look good in black boots, black leather robes, along with her repressive whip in one hand and pistol in the other!  She's ontologically, epistemologically and ethically defaced her image into the Beast's. She's a modern antichrist, put biblically. She prates and speaks "pompous words" that only her ilk know.  The "elect" get it however, to her huffing and puffing chagrin. One can't make this stuff up. Mr. Haley, Esq., offers a good article.

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/11/bandit-bishop-running-outlaw-gang-in.html?spref=fb

Bandit Bishop Running Outlaw Gang in South Carolina

KJS: She's head of the Church of England. If she can do it, why can't I?

Bandit Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, known far and wide in ECUSA for her lawlessness and contempt of the canons, has organized a new gang of outlaws in South Carolina. Together they are riding roughshod over the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, violating South Carolina law, and laying plans to steal the good name and corporate seal of the Diocese of South Carolina.

Or is that too plainspoken for some Episcopalians? Perhaps they would prefer an opening paragraph like this:

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA), the Most Reverend Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, has again taken steps without any canonical authority that will ensure future litigation with the Diocese of South Carolina and its Bishop, the Right Reverend Mark Lawrence. The steps involve a refusal to recognize the authority of either Bishop Lawrence or in his stead the Standing Committee of the Diocese, the calling of an unauthorized and unconstitutional "Special Convention" for next March, the misappropriation of the diocesan name and corporate seal, and the recognition and full support of a wholly uncanonical and ad hoc "Steering Committee" to exercise unspecified and unstructured authority pending the gathering of the illegal "Special Convention."

I do not think it is any improvement, frankly, to try to put what is happening into politer terms. All it does is mask the crudeness of the power play that is taking place with ever-increasing rapidity and ruthlessness. Since 815 is being anything but polite, why should the description of what they are doing be polite?

You can read the distasteful details in this article by the Rev. George Conger at Anglican Ink, and you can read even more sordid background (together with some very pointed questions) in this excellent survey of the situation by the concerned folk at the Anglican Communion Institute.

Surely these latest maneuvers mark a new nadir for the Bandit Bishop and her hired guns. What is especially tragic is that the pastoral needs of those who wish to "remain Episcopal" are being subordinated to her future litigation agenda, while the latter has practically zero chance of success. For the first time in her outlaw career, I believe the Bandit Bishop and her gang will have met their match in South Carolina.

The Episcopal Church (USA) may still be politically powerful in some quarters, but not in South Carolina, especially following that State's Supreme Court decision in the All Saints Waccamaw case. It took ten years for the latter litigation to wend its way through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court, and no civil court in the State is going to want to pay attention to any of the Church's defeated arguments again.

The Dennis Canon is as dead as a doornail in South Carolina, and so are any thoughts of an implied trust on diocesan property based on other Church canons and past relations. Only an express trust will be recognized in South Carolina, and such a trust requires the Diocese's written consent to its imposition. No such consent exists, or has ever existed at any time in the past.

Moreover, the Diocese of South Carolina is organized as a corporation under South Carolina law. That fact guarantees its own independent, legal identity in the State's courts and before all of its executive and legislative bodies, officers and agencies. For the Bandit Bishop and her minions to try to appropriate that identity for their own nefarious purposes is fully akin to what would be called "identity theft" in any other context.

Why in the world, then, would the "remain Episcopal" group, consisting of some twelve parishes in the Diocese, want to get off on such a wrong foot under South Carolina law? The answer is plain, no matter how much they may try to disavow it, and play the innocent: they are wholly subservient to their captain, and that captain is Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Chief Outlaw of the Episcopal Church (USA).

It is only with her recognition, aid and support that these others could go down such a lawless path of their own. Inspired by her example, they have impersonated the Diocesan office in two emails, misused the corporate seal, and pretended to be who they are not under South Carolina law. This is, of course, all pursuant to, and in order to further yet again, 815's Grand Strategy for dealing with dissident dioceses, as spelled out by 815 itself and discussed in this earlier post.

As the ACI article carefully explains, the Bandit Bishop's outlaw strategy in South Carolina is not just invented from day to day; it is self-contradictory, and will result in embarrassment in the courts. On the one hand, 815 is acting as though the Diocese has not left, but has only had all of its positions suddenly become vacant -- and it is going about the process of filling them with new people.

But on the other hand, the actions in South Carolina being taken by the Presiding Bishop are canonical only if there is no longer a Diocese there, but only patches of raw territory waiting to be organized as a new diocese. So which is it?

Hint: they don't know, and they are not going to say. They are improvising, as I say, and they will keep on improvising until they have run out of tunes to try. Meanwhile, the object is to cause maximum annoyance and expense to the legitimate Diocese. Under current South Carolina law, this cannot end well.

Within ECUSA, the attitude is mostly "she has to do this -- Bishop Lawrence has given her no choice." But what does that really say? Think about it for a moment.

Has Bishop Lawrence forced the Bandit Bishop to act like a bandit? Has he forced her to violate the Church's own canons, and to encourage others to violate South Carolina law? Is that what Episcopalians are all about? To gain a short-term end by the use of illegal means? Is that the example which Christ set for us to follow?

I scarcely recognize the Church that I am in any more. Its leadership is not Christian, as their repeated lawless actions demonstrate. And the pew-sitters, officers, deacons, priests and bishops who allow them to run amok with impunity are not just enablers, but run the risk of becoming, in the moral sense at least, abetters and unindicted co-conspirators for an unlawful enterprise.

Trying to bring the Chief Outlaw to discipline before her own tribunals at this point would be too little, too late. The time to do that is long past -- it should have been right when she committed five violations of the same canon in putting the first notches in her belt. Just as it failed to discipline Bishops Pike and Spong before her, the Church is now showing its impotence, iniquity and increasing irrelevance by failing to call its current leader to account.

This is the season of stewardship, when all Christians are reminded of their duty to use wisely and well the resources with which God has favored them. It is not just folly anymore, but positively wicked, to continue to support such lawlessness from any level -- including that of the Anglican Communion. (Are you listening, ABCD Welby?)

So where should disgusted Episcopalians turn? First, to Holy Scripture -- Ephesians 6:10-20 would be a good place to start. Next, spread the word about what is happening. The story tells itself -- but it needs to be told. Those in South Carolina and neighboring States should be writing letters to their local papers; those elsewhere can write letters of support to Bishop Lawrence and his Diocese. They need to hear that not all of the Episcopal Church has abandoned them!

Send letters wherever you think they might do some good. ECUSA does not operate in a vacuum; it pretends to be a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. Write the ABC and the new ABCD. ECUSA's corporate operations are under the jurisdiction of New York's Attorney General, who intervened once before, after the scandal of Ellen Cooke. Finally, ECUSA is a 501 (c) (3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code, and must stay within the limits specified for such organizations. Many of its member dioceses use its charitable exemption under an "umbrella" arrangement allowed by the IRS, but that can last only for so long as ECUSA uses its funds and assets for qualified charitable purposes. Without any meaningful oversight of its litigation expenses, it is difficult to see how the amounts it is deploying to punish departing dioceses and parishes could pass muster under applicable standards.

And while you are at it, please include in your prayers the Diocese of South Carolina and her faithful Bishop.

Theological Rage & Bitterness: Earth Shifts As Episcopal Leaders Rage, Revise & Respond to the Diocese of South Carolina

Stand Firm | The Earth Shifted: Rage, Revisionists & Responses for The Diocese of South Carolina

The Earth Shifted: Rage, Revisionists & Responses for The Diocese of South Carolina

Over the past nine years, I’ve gotten to know a limited number of fellow Episcopalians who enjoy analysis, trending, forecasting, and strategy. All of us check in with one another periodically by phone, email, and skype and enjoy some great conversation. In fact, a group of us got together a few years ago—from all over the States—simply to chat and enjoy one another’s company, all the while feverishly analyzing, trending, forecasting, and strategizing. It was a delight, simply because most of my friends don’t have those interests [believe me, they have others that keep me busy!] and it’s nice to be around people with similar minds on occasion.

One of the favorite conversations has been in predicting what 815—specifically Katherine Jefferts Schori, David Booth Beers, and their various apparatchiks—would do about the Diocese of South Carolina.

That Diocese has been the one that has been the most disciplined and effective in continually differentiating itself from the foundational worldview—the particular and customized gospel of 815—and actions of the current leadership of our church, while at the same time remaining within The Episcopal Church. As a result of its persistent and vocal differentiation it has earned the ire of our church’s current national leadership.

My thesis was always the same.

The actions of our church’s current leadership at the highest levels towards the remaining traditionalists in our church—particularly those traditionalists who are stating and acting in clear, public, formal, official ways that demonstrate their repudiation of the beliefs and actions of our current leadership—are largely driven by rage, and that rage blinds them to reasonable, clear-headed decisions that allow them to preserve resources, manage our church’s image, and look to positive future actions.

Since my thesis was that our national leadership was driven by fury—outrage and bitterness—then it made sense that such intense emotion would not allow them to do what was clearly the best, most helpful thing for The Episcopal Church as a whole. Instead, their emotions would force them to behave ridiculously and foolishly and ineptly and they would move to rid themselves of those with whom they were most angry, most outraged—and that, obviously, would be the Diocese of South Carolina and through the most draconian means.

Over the past two years, as our leaders took the next steps at General Convention in keeping with their particular, customized gospel, and as the Diocese of South Carolina continued to clearly and publicly distance themselves from the unique theology and worldview of our current leadership and differentiate the Gospel which the Diocese held from the particular unique gospel of our current national leadership, fellow analysts and forecasters would tell me that “surely our leaders would not be so foolish as to move against a diocese that was so clearly in a weak position already.”

Why move against a diocese when there is no need, and when that diocese is in an extraordinarily weak, minority position within the denomination as a whole? It would be like blowing a mosquito away with a cannon—aimed at the floor of one’s house.

This line of conversation always led to other competing theses regarding the revisionist activists in The Episcopal Church. For if there’s one thing that’s always troubled me about some of my fellow conservatives in The Episcopal Church, it’s been their seeming inability to recognize the intensity, commitment, and emotional fervor with which revisionist activists hold their beliefs—and how utterly amoral, bullying, and controlling they are. There truly are little to no limits to what they will do to further their ideology; and for that ideology—that religion of theirs—there is no compromise. There may be “temporary truces” while they gather more strength in order to force eventual compliance, but their commitment is to forcing their religion on the rest of us. And they will not stop at anything to do that.

It remains stunning to me that so many conservatives seem unable to recognize those hard truths about the nature of their opponents in the church and the fervor with which they hold their competing and antithetical gospel. What that means is that many conservatives are left attempting to “reason with” revisionist activists, or negotiate, or compromise, or hope for grace or generosity from them, while assuming that they share the same basic foundational principles and values.

Such misconceptions lead to heartache and disappointment and confusion in the end. “We thought we had a good, positive discussion; we thought there had been some mutual agreements and commonalities. What happened?” Truth is, revisionist activists and conservatives simply don’t share the same moral universe, the same faith, the same values—they come from antithetical worldviews, and there is no unity of mission with such mutually opposing foundations.

But as the months rolled on, I began to wonder. Had I been advising 815 on what to do with so hated an enemy as the Diocese of South Carolina, I’d have told them to simply pat the diocese figuratively on the head, chuck it under the chin, and proceed onward with ones’ activities. For the position of the Diocese of South Carolina was strikingly weak—one of waiting, powerless, while internally the diocese fractured with differing views as to what to do.

As I predicted some years ago, I didn’t believe that many parishes would follow St. Andrews’, Mount Pleasant—and as it turned out, it was only St. Andrews—but I did believe that the Diocese would grow steadily less united in its determination to remain within, and wait for the leadership of TEC to move against its leadership. Some parishes would wish to leave. Some would wish to “take further action.” Some would wish for everything to “just die down and go away.” And the four revisionist parishes would continue clattering and sniping whatever happened.

The very best thing that could happen to the Diocese of South Carolina would be for the emotions—the fury—of our church’s national leadership to get the better of their clear-headed strategy of allowing the Diocese to fracture and come apart at the seams.


The most helpful and unifying and energizing thing for the Diocese of South Carolina would be for our Presiding Bishop, her legal advisor, and others to “give the Diocese her freedom” by attempting to rid themselves of the troublesome diocese in the most ham-handed of ways.

But could our church’s national leadership really be that foolish? Would they allow their feelings—intense as they were—to over-ride clear thinking and calculation? Perhaps not, I thought. Perhaps—through sheer force of will—our church’s national leaders had determined to simply allow the Diocese to die “from within”—or continue to raise a clamor, with no power whatsoever. As galling as it would be to hear the continuous clatter of a diocese which didn’t share the same faith as our church’s national leaders, surely that was the better part of wisdom, since there wasn’t actually anything that the Diocese of South Carolina could accomplish other than speak, albeit loudly.

Nevertheless, my stance has always been that ultimately, against all reason and strategy and wisdom, our Presiding Bishop and other advisors, along with multiple other revisionist activists on the disciplinary board, had to do what they did this week, because of who they are—they simply could not allow another entity to be so publicly and boldly differentiated from their own personal faith and agenda, and remain within The Episcopal Church. They did what they had to do, considering the level and force of their emotions—considering who they were. They were never going to be able to overcome the depth of their own bile, spite, vengefulness, and anger.

General Convention 2012 occurred—and the canons were changed yet again, this time to force parishes to consider cross-dressers as potential clergy, not to mention approving a vacuous temporary “rite” for blessing sexual relationships between two men or two women. My greatest personal concern was that the Diocese of South Carolina would simply leave TEC, because of the rank inconvenience of having to continually and loudly say “yes, yes, our denomination’s leadership as a whole does not share the same faith as our diocese’s, but we are willing to stay within it and harry and hound our leadership to the end, proclaiming our differences to the world.”

As I’ve been clear over the years, I believe that it is perfectly possible to remain within a corrupt and evil organization, and I believe that some are called to do so—until they are not. It is not intrinsically immoral to remain within a corrupt and evil organization, as long as one’s differences are made clear. [Indeed, there are some who are a part of China’s government, or Russia’s, or Cuba’s who are hiding within those governments and making no such public distinction—and they are doing good work.] And there were some who were a part of the highest levels of leadership of countries whose very nature was intrinsically religious: Daniel in Babylon and Joseph in Egypt are obvious examples, but there have been many more down through the ages, not to mention, of course, faithful Jews within a corrupt and evil Israel, century after century after century.

But my goodness, it’s a tough thing to carry forth—continually, over and over and over, maintaining one’s antithetical differences with the leadership of an organization, while maintaining a stressful, high-conflict position within such an organization.

Given the best possible option, my hope was that the Diocese of South Carolina would remain within TEC and continually and loudly assert its differences with our leadership and re-assert the Gospel, which they have done so well. My hope was that the leaders of our church would swallow their anger and do the wise thing, not seeking further fracture, and simply allowing the Diocese of South Carolina to continue as a tiny, irrelevant, and powerless minority.

The second best option—and “second-best” is poor phrasing, since it is indeed a historically tragic decision—was for The Episcopal Church’s national leadership to behave as it did on Monday, October 15, 2012 and attempt to rid themselves of their most active internal opposition by attempting to depose Bishop Lawrence on three charges, two of which had already been declared as invalid charges by a previous committee. Quite rightly, diocesan leadership had already decided in advance what its response would be to such an act; they rather cleverly had created a contingency action beforehand that was automatic, should our national church leaders behave so stupidly as they did. And so now, the Diocese of South Carolina, one of the oldest, thriving dioceses in The Episcopal Church, is gone.


The next steps are fairly obvious, since we’ve seen them enacted so many times now within The Episcopal Church. The Presiding Bishop will assert that she “no longer recognizes” the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina, and appoint her own potemkin crew as the “Standing Committee” of a faux “diocese” made up largely of the parishioners of the four revisionist parishes in the Diocese, and then attempt to freeze the Diocese of South Carolina’s funds. Then the lawsuits can begin—and along with that, many more millions of dollars, probably between $3-6 million over the next few years on the Diocese of South Carolina alone, all funded through portions of the pledges that Episcopalians give to their local parishes. [By the way, if you haven’t yet Written The Letter regarding future pledges, now is a perfect time to do so.]

With all of the above being fairly obvious, let’s go ahead and list the consequences of these latest actions of the national leadership of our denomination.

1) The Diocese of South Carolina—with the exception of the four revisionist parishes—is now beautifully unified and energized, and it didn’t have to make any kind of divisive or frightening decision regarding its future within The Episcopal Church. Its strategy was, after all, correct—it had but to wait for the leaders of our church to surrender to their fury and act against the Diocese by moving to rid our church of Bishop Lawrence, while having already pre-set a response from the diocese that would be triggered by the actions of the leaders of our church.
 
I am so proud of the Diocese of South Carolina and its leadership. They waited it out—against all the anathemas and castigations from both within and without The Episcopal Church—and their patience and discipline were rewarded with a buffoonish, ham-fisted, and petty action from the national church. 

They were strategic, and they were ready, without ever jumping the gun or leaving from mere inconvenience, hurt feelings, frustration, depression, or a simple desire not to fight anymore. They committed to the inconvenience, the hurt feelings, the frustration, the depression, and the fighting; they were willing to undergo anything but annihilation, and I honor that more than I can possibly describe.

They didn’t leave until the triggering action occurred—as was inevitable, considering who our leadership is and the depth and intensity of their emotions. The diocese suffered through a lot of grief and horror—but they never just “sat there and suffered” or whined, while wringing their hands. They were a bold and constant, public and differentiated witness within The Episcopal Church. They left it all out there on the field of honor, never wavering, always clear, always forthright. Nobody ever “wondered what the Diocese of South Carolina believed.” Everybody knew what they believed—and the Gospel was preached in our church, thanks to the Diocese of South Carolina.


And now, they will, by the grace of God, be a bold and constant witness outside The Episcopal Church.

2) Provinces all around the Anglican Communion will be aghast at further demonstrations of the consequences of our leadership’s particular customized foundational worldview and faith. It’s hard for me to imagine just how awful this will look to bishops, clergy, Primates, and laypeople in just about every Province of the Communion, from the Church of England, to the Middle East, to Nigeria, to Australia—for without any need or provocation, other than vengeful bile, the leadership of our church has managed to lose another diocese.

3) Conservatives, moderates, and even some old-fashioned liberals within The Episcopal Church will recognize this act by our church’s leaders for what it is: petty, controlling, angry, aggressively domineering, and very very stupid.

4) We will have very very interesting times in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina.


—We’re a very happy, unified state. We vacation at the beach, our parishioners are all connected by family and politics, we have relatives all over both dioceses, and—save for the 2/3 imported revisionist clergy in Upper South Carolina—there’s a sympathy for the lower diocese.

—Bishop Waldo is happily trampling towards instituting same-sex blessings in our diocese, using a heavily weighted revisionist “Unity Task Force” to rubber stamp the decision. It’s not going to go well, since there is absolutely no outcry for him to authorize the trumped up, tawdry rite that the General Convention approved in our diocese for the significantly less than 1% who are actually both a) gay and b) in a sexual relationship and wanting that particular sexual relationship to be recognized and approved of. Parishes will fracture over it, those moving to the area will recognize that the Diocese of Upper South Carolina is no longer a moderate option, and plenty of individuals will depart for happier Christian climes. I personally think that revisionists in the Diocese recognize those consequences as utterly predictable. So all the authorization of the rite by Bishop Waldo will ultimately accomplish is a further use of another bizarre form of diocesan and/or parish seppuku, of which there are obviously many varieties.

—But now . . . well, things are getting interesting. Because there’s going to be all sorts of pressure from national church apparatchiks for our diocese to recognize the faux “Standing Committee” and the faux “diocese” in the lower diocese and engage in joint liturgies and hand-waving meetings.

—And Episcopalians up here . . . and in East Carolina . . . and in Georgia . . . and in Northern Florida . . . and in other parts of the country, are positively salivating over the possibility of simply joining the Diocese of South Carolina, and asking that Diocese to act as a sending diocese for mission outreaches.


—If a group of parishioners up here should decide to plant a church, there’s nothing to prevent them from petitioning the Diocese of South Carolina to accept them as a parish or mission of the diocese, contingent within the congregation’s bylaws of the diocese not joining any alternate Anglican entity save a Province of the Anglican Communion. At that point, you’ve got an opportunity to found congregations and parishes that are allied with a single, functional, healthy Anglican diocese without the entanglements of being involved in various dysfunctional, unhealthy umbrella Anglican options.

This has Gold Rush possibilities.

—Long term, the decision by our national church leaders to eliminate their opposition in the Diocese of South Carolina has utterly devastating implications for the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. Without a major miracle, and some kind of born-again conversion of revisionist clergy and bishop [akin to God pouring fire down from the heavens onto the soaked altars and burnt offerings to Baal], we will have a slow and determined migration—physically and/or ecclesially—between the two regions.


Ultimately, because we don’t share the same gospel, the revisionists will end up together. And the conservatives will end up together. And that can only mean decline for Upper South Carolina over the long term as “the earth shifts under our feet.”

People go where there is health and wholeness—that is our nature and migration is inevitable. I could go parish by parish in my diocese and point out the hard cold facts. But there is no need to do that—we have but to watch in the coming years.

In one sense, this day is a very sad day. We’re seeing another massive fault line open up in The Episcopal Church—and another self-slaughtering act by our leaders. We’re seeing another diocese depart—like chunks of a melting ice floe detaching and drifting away. We’re seeing the gradual break up of a historic denomination—one that will always hold a very dear place in my heart. We’re seeing quite epic mistakes made that will feature huge consequences in money, time, energy, public relations, and ultimately identity and failure and death.

But in another sense, it’s a relief. Our church’s leaders are doing what they do, and “living into” who they are, at core. They are demonstrating their foundational worldview, their unique gospel, and its values and theology, to the entire world, Anglican and otherwise. It helps to see reality. It helps to have clarity.

Now—in consequence of our church’s decisions, other people get to make decisions—Primates, bishops, clergy, laity—in a continuous round of actions and reactions, behavior and consequences.
I am reminded of the Pharaoh and his armies—his pride and anger urging him forward into a foolish and dangerous situation as his armies pursued the Israelites. I wonder what those men felt as their chariot wheels sunk into the mud of the sea.

I wonder at what moment they recognized that they had made a series of terrible and foolish mistakes.
I don’t think this ends well for The Episcopal Church.
But God bless the Diocese of South Carolina!

South Carolina Diocese Expelled From Episcopal Church

http://religiousintelligence.org/churchnewspaper/?p=28657

 

South Carolina expelled from the Episcopal Church

 

Posted by George Conger on Thursday, October 18th, 2012 and filed under International news, News.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

 

The Diocese of South Carolina has been pushed out of the Episcopal Church of the USA. The involuntary secession of the 39,000-member diocese comes as charges have been brought against its bishop, the Rt Rev Mark Lawrence for allegedly “abandoning” the communion of the Episcopal Church.


On 17 October 2012 a statement printed on the Diocese’s Website said that two days earlier Bishop Lawrence had been notified by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori that on 18 September 2012 “the Disciplinary Board for Bishops had certified his abandonment of The Episcopal Church.”


The diocese reported that Bishop Lawrence was “notified of these actions taken by the Episcopal Church between two meetings, one held on October 3 and one to be held on October 22, which Bishop Andrew Waldo of the Upper Diocese of South Carolina and Bishop Lawrence had set up with the Presiding Bishop to find a peaceful alternative to the growing issues between The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina. The meetings were to explore ‘creative solutions’ for resolving these issues to avoid further turmoil in the Diocese and in The Episcopal Church.”


The diocese noted that “two of the three charges had previously been determined by a majority vote of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops in November 2011 not to constitute abandonment,” however protections against double jeopardy are not given to defendants in Episcopal ecclesiastical proceedings.

The diocese added that it had not been served with a “signed copy of the certification and also remains uninformed of the identity of those making these charges.”

It stated: “We feel a deep sense of sadness but a renewed sense of God’s providence that The Episcopal Church has chosen to act against this Diocese and its Bishop during a good faith attempt peacefully to resolve our differences. These actions make it clear The Episcopal Church no longer desires to be affiliated with the Diocese of South Carolina.”


South Carolina’s diocesan constitution and canons do not recognize the authority of the disciplinary canons inaugurated by the national Church in 2009, and it is unlikely the bishop will make a formal response to the charges — thereby recognizing their jurisdiction over him.


However, the diocesan convention has adopted defence measures against the contingency of a theologically motivated attack by liberal clique currently controlling the Church’s offices in New York and adopted resolutions to protect its independence.


The diocese is also protected by South Carolina law. The state’s Supreme Court has struck down the national Church’s property rules, the “Dennis Canon”, holding they have no legal effect in the state. While the national Church has set aside a $3million war chest to fund litigation, canon law experts tell The Church of England Newspaper it is unlikely to prevail in a fight to seize church property.


The diocese noted “this action by The Episcopal Church triggered two pre-existing corporate resolutions of the Diocese, which simultaneously disaffiliated the Diocese from The Episcopal Church.” A special convention has been called for 17 November 2012 in Charleston to discuss a way forward for the diocese.